Evaluating the theory of mind (ToM) capabilities of language models (LMs) has recently received much attention. However, many existing benchmarks rely on synthetic data which risks misaligning the resulting experiments with human behavior. We introduce the first ToM dataset based on naturally occurring spoken dialogs, Common-ToM, and show that LMs struggle to demonstrate ToM. We then show that integrating a simple, explicit representation of beliefs improves LM performance on Common-ToM.
We propose a novel clustering pipeline to detect and characterize influence campaigns from documents. This approach clusters parts of document, detects clusters that likely reflect an influence campaign, and then identifies documents linked to an influence campaign via their association with the high-influence clusters. Our approach outperforms both the direct document-level classification and the direct document-level clustering approach in predicting if a document is part of an influence campaign. We propose various novel techniques to enhance our pipeline, including using an existing event factuality prediction system to obtain document parts, and aggregating multiple clustering experiments to improve the performance of both cluster and document classification. Classifying documents on the top of clustering not only accurately extracts the parts of the documents that are relevant to influence campaigns, but also capture influence campaigns as a coordinated and holistic phenomenon. Our approach makes possible more fine-grained and interpretable characterizations of influence campaigns from documents.
When we communicate with other humans, we do not simply generate a sequence of words. Rather, we use our cognitive state (beliefs, desires, intentions) and our model of the audience's cognitive state to create utterances that affect the audience's cognitive state in the intended manner. An important part of cognitive state is the common ground, which is the content the speaker believes, and the speaker believes the audience believes, and so on. While much attention has been paid to common ground in cognitive science, there has not been much work in natural language processing. In this paper, we introduce a new annotation and corpus to capture common ground. We then describe some initial experiments extracting propositions from dialog and tracking their status in the common ground from the perspective of each speaker.
Norm discovery is important for understanding and reasoning about the acceptable behaviors and potential violations in human communication and interactions. We introduce NormSage, a framework for addressing the novel task of conversation-grounded multi-lingual, multi-cultural norm discovery, based on language model prompting and self-verification. NormSAGE leverages the expressiveness and implicit knowledge of the pretrained GPT-3 language model backbone, to elicit knowledge about norms through directed questions representing the norm discovery task and conversation context. It further addresses the risk of language model hallucination with a self-verification mechanism ensuring that the norms discovered are correct and are substantially grounded to their source conversations. Evaluation results show that our approach discovers significantly more relevant and insightful norms for conversations on-the-fly compared to baselines (>10+% in Likert scale rating). The norms discovered from Chinese conversation are also comparable to the norms discovered from English conversation in terms of insightfulness and correctness (<3% difference). In addition, the culture-specific norms are promising quality, allowing for 80% accuracy in culture pair human identification. Finally, our grounding process in norm discovery self-verification can be extended for instantiating the adherence and violation of any norm for a given conversation on-the-fly, with explainability and transparency. NormSAGE achieves an AUC of 95.4% in grounding, with natural language explanation matching human-written quality.
We present a generalized paradigm for adaptation of propositional analysis (predicate-argument pairs) to new tasks and domains. We leverage an analogy between stances (belief-driven sentiment) and concerns (topical issues with moral dimensions/endorsements) to produce an explanatory representation. A key contribution is the combination of semi-automatic resource building for extraction of domain-dependent concern types (with 2-4 hours of human labor per domain) and an entirely automatic procedure for extraction of domain-independent moral dimensions and endorsement values. Prudent (automatic) selection of terms from propositional structures for lexical expansion (via semantic similarity) produces new moral dimension lexicons at three levels of granularity beyond a strong baseline lexicon. We develop a ground truth (GT) based on expert annotators and compare our concern detection output to GT, to yield 231% improvement in recall over baseline, with only a 10% loss in precision. F1 yields 66% improvement over baseline and 97.8% of human performance. Our lexically based approach yields large savings over approaches that employ costly human labor and model building. We provide to the community a newly expanded moral dimension/value lexicon, annotation guidelines, and GT.
Frame semantic parsing is a complex problem which includes multiple underlying subtasks. Recent approaches have employed joint learning of subtasks (such as predicate and argument detection), and multi-task learning of related tasks (such as syntactic and semantic parsing). In this paper, we explore multi-task learning of all subtasks with transformer-based models. We show that a purely generative encoder-decoder architecture handily beats the previous state of the art in FrameNet 1.7 parsing, and that a mixed decoding multi-task approach achieves even better performance. Finally, we show that the multi-task model also outperforms recent state of the art systems for PropBank SRL parsing on the CoNLL 2012 benchmark.
Many tasks aim to measure machine reading comprehension (MRC), often focusing on question types presumed to be difficult. Rarely, however, do task designers start by considering what systems should in fact comprehend. In this paper we make two key contributions. First, we argue that existing approaches do not adequately define comprehension; they are too unsystematic about what content is tested. Second, we present a detailed definition of comprehension -- a "Template of Understanding" -- for a widely useful class of texts, namely short narratives. We then conduct an experiment that strongly suggests existing systems are not up to the task of narrative understanding as we define it.
We introduce a new syntax-aware model for dependency-based semantic role labeling that outperforms syntax-agnostic models for English and Spanish. We use a BiLSTM to tag the text with supertags extracted from dependency parses, and we feed these supertags, along with words and parts of speech, into a deep highway BiLSTM for semantic role labeling. Our model combines the strengths of earlier models that performed SRL on the basis of a full dependency parse with more recent models that use no syntactic information at all. Our local and non-ensemble model achieves state-of-the-art performance on the CoNLL 09 English and Spanish datasets. SRL models benefit from syntactic information, and we show that supertagging is a simple, powerful, and robust way to incorporate syntax into a neural SRL system.